Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIRST DIVISION
OSCAR VILLAMARIA, JR. G.R. No. 165881
Petitioner,
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.
CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS and Promulgated:
JERRY V. BUSTAMANTE,
Respondents. April 19, 2006
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
[1] [2]
Court assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
[3]
G.R. SP No. 78720 which set aside the Resolution of the National Labor Relations
[4]
Commission (NLRC) in NCR-30-08-03247-00, which in turn affirmed the Decision of
the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint filed by respondent Jerry V. Bustamante.
Petitioner Oscar Villamaria, Jr. was the owner of Villamaria Motors, a sole
proprietorship engaged in assembling passenger jeepneys with a public utility
franchise to operate along the Baclaran-Sucat route. By 1995, Villamaria stopped
assembling jeepneys and retained only nine, four of which he operated by employing
drivers on a boundary basis. One of those drivers was respondent Bustamante who
drove the jeepney with Plate No. PVU-660. Bustamante remitted P450.00 a day to
Villamaria as boundary and kept the residue of his daily earnings as compensation
for driving the vehicle. In August 1997, Villamaria verbally agreed to sell the jeepney
to Bustamante under the boundary-hulog scheme, where Bustamante would remit to
Villarama P550.00 a day for a period of four years; Bustamante would then become
the owner of the vehicle and continue to drive the same under Villamarias franchise.
It was also agreed that Bustamante would make a downpayment of P10,000.00.
On August 7, 1997, Villamaria executed a contract entitled Kasunduan ng Bilihan
[5]
ng Sasakyan sa Pamamagitan ng Boundary-Hulog over the passenger jeepney with
Plate No. PVU-660, Chassis No. EVER95-38168-C and Motor No. SL-26647. The parties
agreed that if Bustamante failed to pay the boundary-hulog for three days, Villamaria
Motors would hold on to the vehicle until Bustamante paid his arrears, including a
penalty of P50.00 a day; in case Bustamante failed to remit the daily boundary-hulog
for a period of one week, the Kasunduan would cease to have legal effect and
Bustamante would have to return the vehicle to Villamaria Motors.
Under the Kasunduan, Bustamante was prohibited from driving the vehicle
without prior authority from Villamaria Motors. Thus, Bustamante was authorized to
operate the vehicle to transport passengers only and not for other purposes. He was
also required to display an identification card in front of the windshield of the
vehicle; in case of failure to do so, any fine that may be imposed by government
authorities would be charged against his account. Bustamante further obliged himself
to pay for the cost of replacing any parts of the vehicle that would be lost or damaged
due to his negligence. In case the vehicle sustained serious damage, Bustamante was
obliged to notify Villamaria Motors before commencing repairs. Bustamante was not
allowed to wear slippers, short pants or undershirts while driving. He was required
to be polite and respectful towards the passengers. He was also obliged to notify
Villamaria Motors in case the vehicle was leased for two or more days and was
required to attend any meetings which may be called from time to time. Aside from
the boundary-hulog, Bustamante was also obliged to pay for the annual registration
fees of the vehicle and the premium for the vehicles comprehensive insurance.
Bustamante promised to strictly comply with the rules and regulations imposed by
Villamaria for the upkeep and maintenance of the jeepney.
Bustamante continued driving the jeepney under the supervision and control of
Villamaria. As agreed upon, he made daily remittances of P550.00 in payment of the
purchase price of the vehicle. Bustamante failed to pay for the annual registration
fees of the vehicle, but Villamaria allowed him to continue driving the jeepney.
In 1999, Bustamante and other drivers who also had the same arrangement with
Villamaria Motors failed to pay their respective boundary-hulog. This prompted
[6]
Villamaria to serve a Paalala, reminding them that under the Kasunduan, failure to
pay the daily boundary-hulog for one week, would mean their respective jeepneys
would be returned to him without any complaints. He warned the drivers that the
Kasunduan would henceforth be strictly enforced and urged them to comply with
their obligation to avoid litigation.
On July 24, 2000, Villamaria took back the jeepney driven by Bustamante and
barred the latter from driving the vehicle.
[7]
On August 15, 2000, Bustamante filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against
[8]
Villamaria and his wife Teresita. In his Position Paper, Bustamante alleged that he
was employed by Villamaria in July 1996 under the boundary system, where he was
required to remit P450.00 a day. After one year of continuously working for them, the
spouses Villamaria presented the Kasunduan for his signature, with the assurance
that he (Bustamante) would own the jeepney by March 2001 after paying P550.00 in
daily installments and that he would thereafter continue driving the vehicle along the
same route under the same franchise. He further narrated that in July 2000, he
informed the Villamaria spouses that the surplus engine of the jeepney needed to be
replaced, and was assured that it would be done. However, he was later arrested and
his drivers license was confiscated because apparently, the replacement engine that
was installed was taken from a stolen vehicle. Due to negotiations with the
apprehending authorities, the jeepney was not impounded. The Villamaria spouses
took the jeepney from him on July 24, 2000, and he was no longer allowed to drive the
vehicle since then unless he paid them P70,000.00.
Bustamante prayed that judgment be rendered in his favor, thus:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered ordering the respondents, jointly and severally, the following:
1. Reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights
and execute a Deed of Sale in favor of the complainant relative to the PUJ with Plate No.
PVU-660;
2. Ordering the respondents to pay backwages in the amount of P400.00 a day
and other benefits computed from July 24, 2000 up to the time of his actual
reinstatement;
3. Ordering respondents to return the amount of P10,000.00 and P180,000.00 for
the expenses incurred by the complainant in the repair and maintenance of the subject
jeep;
4. Ordering the respondents to refund the amount of One Hundred (P100.00)
Pesos per day counted from August 7, 1997 up to June 2000 or a total of P91,200.00;
5. To pay moral and exemplary damages of not less than P200,000.00;
6. Attorneys fee[s] of not less than 10% of the monetary award.
[9]
Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are also being prayed for.
[10]
In their Position Paper, the spouses Villamaria admitted the existence of the
Kasunduan, but alleged that Bustamante failed to pay the P10,000.00 downpayment
and the vehicles annual registration fees. They further alleged that Bustamante
eventually failed to remit the requisite boundary-hulog of P550.00 a day, which
prompted them to issue the Paalaala. Instead of complying with his obligations,
Bustamante stopped making his remittances despite his daily trips and even brought
the jeepney to the province without permission. Worse, the jeepney figured in an
accident and its license plate was confiscated; Bustamante even abandoned the
vehicle in a gasoline station in Sucat, Paraaque City for two weeks. When the security
guard at the gasoline station requested that the vehicle be retrieved and Teresita
Villamaria asked Bustamante for the keys, Bustamante told her: Di kunin ninyo. When
the vehicle was finally retrieved, the tires were worn, the alternator was gone, and
the battery was no longer working.
[11]
Citing the cases of Cathedral School of Technology v. NLRC and Canlubang
[12]
Security Agency Corporation v. NLRC, the spouses Villamaria argued that
Bustamante was not illegally dismissed since the Kasunduan executed on August 7,
1997 transformed the employer-employee relationship into that of vendor-vendee.
Hence, the spouses concluded, there was no legal basis to hold them liable for illegal
dismissal. They prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and patent
lack of merit.
[13]
In his Reply, Bustamante claimed that Villamaria exercised control and
supervision over the conduct of his employment. He maintained that the rulings of
[14] [15]
the Court in National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, Magboo v. Bernardo, and
[16]
Citizen's League of Free Workers v. Abbas are germane to the issue as they define
the nature of the owner/operator-driver relationship under the boundary system. He
further reiterated that it was the Villamaria spouses who presented the Kasunduan to
him and that he conformed thereto only upon their representation that he would
own the vehicle after four years. Moreover, it appeared that the Paalala was duly
received by him, as he, together with other drivers, was made to affix his signature on
a blank piece of paper purporting to be an attendance sheet.
[17]
On March 15, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the spouses
Villamaria and ordered the complaint dismissed on the following ratiocination:
Respondents presented the contract of Boundary-Hulog, as well as the PAALALA,
to prove their claim that complainant violated the terms of their contract and
afterwards abandoned the vehicle assigned to him. As against the foregoing, [the]
complaints (sic) mere allegations to the contrary cannot prevail.
Not having been illegally dismissed, complainant is not entitled to damages and
[18]
attorney's fees.
[19]
Bustamante appealed the decision to the NLRC, insisting that the Kasunduan
did not extinguish the employer-employee relationship between him and Villamaria.
While he did not receive fixed wages, he kept only the excess of the boundary-hulog
which he was required to remit daily to Villamaria under the agreement. Bustamante
maintained that he remained an employee because he was engaged to perform
activities which were necessary or desirable to Villamarias trade or business.
[20]
The NLRC rendered judgment dismissing the appeal for lack of merit, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's appeal is hereby DISMISSED
for reasons not stated in the Labor Arbiter's decision but mainly on a jurisdictional
[21]
issue, there being none over the subject matter of the controversy.
The NLRC ruled that under the Kasunduan, the juridical relationship between
Bustamante and Villamaria was that of vendor and vendee, hence, the Labor Arbiter
had no jurisdiction over the complaint. Bustamante filed a Motion for
[22]
Reconsideration, which the NLRC resolved to deny on May 30, 2003.
Bustamante elevated the matter to the CA via Petition for Certiorari, alleging
that the NLRC erred
I
IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS APPEAL FOR REASON NOT STATED IN THE LABOR
ARBITERS DECISION, BUT MAINLY ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE;
II
IN DISREGARDING THE LAW AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DECLARED
THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS DEFINITELY A MATTER WHICH IS BEYOND THE
[23]
PROTECTIVE MANTLE OF OUR LABOR LAWS.
Bustamante insisted that despite the Kasunduan, the relationship between him and
Villamaria continued to be that of employer-employee and as such, the Labor Arbiter
had jurisdiction over his complaint. He further alleged that it is common knowledge
that operators of passenger jeepneys (including taxis) pay their drivers not on a
regular monthly basis but on commission or boundary basis, or even the boundary-
hulog system. Bustamante asserted that he was dismissed from employment without
any lawful or just cause and without due notice.
For his part, Villamaria averred that Bustamante failed to adduce proof of their
employer-employee relationship. He further pointed out that the Dinglasan case
pertains to the boundary system and not the boundary-hulog system, hence
inapplicable in the instant case. He argued that upon the execution of the Kasunduan,
the juridical tie between him and Bustamante was transformed into a vendor-vendee
relationship. Noting that he was engaged in the manufacture and sale of jeepneys and
not in the business of transporting passengers for consideration, Villamaria
contended that the daily fees which Bustmante paid were actually periodic
installments for the the vehicle and were not the same fees as understood in the
boundary system. He added that the boundary-hulog plan was basically a scheme to
help the driver-buyer earn money and eventually pay for the unit in full, and for the
owner to profit not from the daily earnings of the driver-buyer but from the purchase
price of the unit sold. Villamaria further asserted that the apparently restrictive
conditions in the Kasunduan did not mean that the means and method of driver-
buyers conduct was controlled, but were mere ways to preserve the vehicle for the
benefit of both parties: Villamaria would be able to collect the agreed purchase price,
while Bustamante would be assured that the vehicle would still be in good running
condition even after four years. Moreover, the right of vendor to impose certain
conditions on the buyer should be respected until full ownership of the property is
vested on the latter. Villamaria insisted that the parallel circumstances obtaining in
[24]
Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Drilon has analogous application to the instant
issue.
[25]
In its Decision dated August 30, 2004, the CA reversed and set aside the NLRC
decision. The fallo of the decision reads:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE IN THIS CASE, THUS, the impugned resolutions of
the NLRC must be, as they are hereby are, REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and judgment
entered in favor of petitioner:
Under the Kasunduan, petitioner retained supervision and control over the
conduct of the respondent as driver of the jeepney, thus:
Ang mga patakaran, kaugnay ng bilihang ito sa pamamagitan ng boundary hulog
ay ang mga sumusunod:
1. Pangangalagaan at pag-iingatan ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang
sasakyan ipinagkatiwala sa kanya ng TAUHAN NG UNANG PANIG.
2. Na ang sasakyan nabanggit ay gagamitin lamang ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG
PANIG sa paghahanapbuhay bilang pampasada o pangangalakal sa malinis at maayos
na pamamaraan.
3. Na ang sasakyan nabanggit ay hindi gagamitin ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG
PANIG sa mga bagay na makapagdudulot ng kahihiyan, kasiraan o pananagutan sa
TAUHAN NG UNANG PANIG.
4. Na hindi ito mamanehohin ng hindi awtorisado ng opisina ng UNANG PANIG.
5. Na ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay kinakailangang maglagay ng ID
Card sa harap ng windshield upang sa pamamagitan nito ay madaliang malaman kung
ang nagmamaneho ay awtorisado ng VILLAMARIA MOTORS o hindi.
6. Na sasagutin ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang [halaga ng] multa kung
sakaling mahuli ang sasakyang ito na hindi nakakabit ang ID card sa wastong lugar o
anuman kasalanan o kapabayaan.
7. Na sasagutin din ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang materyales o piyesa
na papalitan ng nasira o nawala ito dahil sa kanyang kapabayaan.
8. Kailangan sa VILLAMARIA MOTORS pa rin ang garahe habang hinuhulugan pa
rin ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang nasabing sasakyan.
9. Na kung magkaroon ng mabigat na kasiraan ang sasakyang ipinagkaloob ng
TAUHAN NG UNANG PANIG, ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay obligadong
itawag ito muna sa VILLAMARIA MOTORS bago ipagawa sa alin mang Motor Shop na
awtorisado ng VILLAMARIA MOTORS.
10. Na hindi pahihintulutan ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG sa panahon ng
pamamasada na ang nagmamaneho ay naka-tsinelas, naka short pants at nakasando
lamang. Dapat ang nagmamaneho ay laging nasa maayos ang kasuotan upang igalang
ng mga pasahero.
11. Na ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG o ang awtorisado niyang driver ay
magpapakita ng magandang asal sa mga pasaheros at hindi dapat magsasalita ng
masama kung sakali man may pasaherong pilosopo upang maiwasan ang anumang
kaguluhan na maaaring kasangkutan.
12. Na kung sakaling hindi makapagbigay ng BOUNDARY HULOG ang TAUHAN
NG IKALAWANG PANIG sa loob ng tatlong (3) araw ay ang opisina ng VILLAMARIA
MOTORS ang may karapatang mangasiwa ng nasabing sasakyan hanggang matugunan
ang lahat ng
responsibilidad. Ang halagang dapat bayaran sa opisina ay may karagdagang multa ng
P50.00 sa araw-araw na ito ay nasa pangangasiwa ng VILLAMARIA MOTORS.
13. Na kung ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay hindi makapagbigay ng
BOUNDARY HULOG sa loob ng isang linggo ay nangangahulugan na ang kasunduang ito
ay wala ng bisa at kusang ibabalik ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang nasabing
sasakyan sa TAUHAN NG UNANG PANIG.
14. Sasagutin ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang bayad sa rehistro,
comprehensive insurance taon-taon at kahit anong uri ng aksidente habang ito ay
hinuhulugan pa sa TAUHAN NG UNANG PANIG.
15. Na ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay obligadong dumalo sa
pangkalahatang pagpupulong ng VILLAMARIA MOTORS sa tuwing tatawag ang mga
tagapangasiwa nito upang maipaabot ang anumang mungkahi sa ikasusulong ng
samahan.
16. Na ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay makikiisa sa lahat ng mga
patakaran na magkakaroon ng pagbabago o karagdagan sa mga darating na panahon
at hindi magiging hadlang sa lahat ng mga balakin ng VILLAMARIA MOTORS sa lalo
pang ipagtatagumpay at ikakatibay ng Samahan.
17. Na ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay hindi magiging buwaya sa
pasahero upang hindi kainisan ng kapwa driver at maiwasan ang pagkakasangkot sa
anumang gulo.
18. Ang nasabing sasakyan ay hindi kalilimutang siyasatin ang kalagayan lalo na
sa umaga bago pumasada, at sa hapon o gabi naman ay sisikapin mapanatili ang
kalinisan nito.
19. Na kung sakaling ang nasabing sasakyan ay maaarkila at aabutin ng dalawa
o higit pang araw sa lalawigan ay dapat lamang na ipagbigay alam muna ito sa
VILLAMARIA MOTORS upang maiwasan ang mga anumang suliranin.
20. Na ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay iiwasan ang pakikipag-unahan
sa kaninumang sasakyan upang maiwasan ang aksidente.
21. Na kung ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay mayroon sasabihin sa
VILLAMARIA MOTORS mabuti man or masama ay iparating agad ito sa kinauukulan at
iwasan na iparating ito kung [kani-kanino] lamang upang maiwasan ang anumang
usapin. Magsadya agad sa opisina ng VILLAMARIA MOTORS.
22. Ang mga nasasaad sa KASUNDUAN ito ay buong galang at puso kong
sinasang-ayunan at buong sikap na pangangalagaan ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG
PANIG ang nasabing sasakyan at gagamitin lamang ito sa paghahanapbuhay at wala
[51]
nang iba pa.
The parties expressly agreed that petitioner, as vendor, and respondent, as
vendee, entered into a contract to sell the jeepney on a daily installment basis of
P550.00 payable in four years and that petitioner would thereafter become its owner.
A contract is one of conditional sale, oftentimes referred to as contract to sell, if the
ownership or title over the
property sold is retained by the vendor, and is not passed to the vendee unless and
until there is full payment of the purchase price and/or upon faithful compliance with
[52]
the other terms and conditions that may lawfully be stipulated. Such payment or
satisfaction of other preconditions, as the case may be, is a positive suspensive
condition, the failure of which is not a breach of contract, casual or serious, but
simply an event that would prevent the obligation of the vendor to convey title from
[53]
acquiring binding force. Stated differently, the efficacy or obligatory force of the
vendor's obligation to transfer title is subordinated to the happening of a future and
uncertain event so that if the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties
[54]
would stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. The vendor may
extrajudicially terminate the operation of the contract, refuse conveyance, and retain
the sums or installments already received, where such rights are expressly provided
[55]
for.
Under the boundary-hulog scheme, petitioner retained ownership of the jeepney
although its material possession was vested in respondent as its driver. In case
respondent failed to make his P550.00 daily installment payment for a week, the
agreement would be of no force and effect and respondent would have to return the
jeepney to petitioner; the employer-employee relationship would likewise be
terminated unless petitioner would allow respondent to continue driving the jeepney
on a boundary basis of P550.00 daily despite the termination of their vendor-vendee
relationship.
The juridical relationship of employer-employee between petitioner and
respondent was not negated by the foregoing stipulation in the Kasunduan,
considering that petitioner retained control of respondents conduct as driver of the
vehicle. As correctly ruled by the CA:
The exercise of control by private respondent over petitioners conduct in
operating the jeepney he was driving is inconsistent with private respondents claim
that he is, or was, not engaged in the transportation business; that, even if petitioner
was allowed to let some other person drive the unit, it was not shown that he did so;
that the existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the worker is
paid but on the presence or absence of control over the means and method of the work;
that the amount earned in excess of the boundary hulog is equivalent to wages; and
that the fact that the power of dismissal was not mentioned in the Kasunduan did not
mean that private respondent never exercised such power, or could not exercise such
power.
Moreover, requiring petitioner to drive the unit for commercial use, or to wear
an identification card, or to don a decent attire, or to park the vehicle in Villamaria
Motors garage, or to inform Villamaria Motors about the fact that the unit would be
going out to the province for two days of more, or to drive the unit carefully, etc.
necessarily related to control over the means by which the petitioner was to go about
his work; that the ruling applicable here is not Singer Sewing Machine but National
Labor Union since the latter case involved jeepney owners/operators and jeepney
drivers, and that the fact that the boundary here represented installment payment of
the purchase price on the jeepney did not withdraw the relationship from that of
employer-employee, in view of the overt presence of supervision and control by the
[56]
employer.
Neither is such juridical relationship negated by petitioners claim that the terms
and conditions in the Kasunduan relative to respondents behavior and deportment as
driver was for his and respondents benefit: to insure that respondent would be able
to pay the requisite daily installment of P550.00, and that the vehicle would still be in
good condition despite the lapse of four years. What is primordial is that petitioner
retained control over the conduct of the respondent as driver of the jeepney.
Indeed, petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle and the holder of the franchise, is
entitled to exercise supervision and control over the respondent, by seeing to it that
the route provided in his franchise, and the rules and regulations of the Land
Transportation Regulatory Board are duly complied with. Moreover, in a business
establishment, an identification card is usually provided not just as a security
measure but to mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm
[57]
who issues it.
As respondents employer, it was the burden of petitioner to prove that
respondents termination from employment was for a lawful or just cause, or, at the
very least, that respondent failed to make his daily remittances of P550.00 as
boundary. However, petitioner failed to do so. As correctly ruled by the appellate
court:
It is basic of course that termination of employment must be effected in
accordance with law. The just and authorized causes for termination of employment
are enumerated under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code.
Parenthetically, given the peculiarity of the situation of the parties here, the
default in the remittance of the boundary hulog for one week or longer may be
considered an additional cause for termination of employment. The reason is because
the Kasunduan would be of no force and effect in the event that the purchaser failed to
remit the boundary hulog for one week. The Kasunduan in this case pertinently
stipulates:
13. Na kung ang TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ay hindi makapagbigay
ng BOUNDARY HULOG sa loob ng isang linggo ay NANGANGAHULUGAN na ang
kasunduang ito ay wala ng bisa at kusang ibabalik ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG
PANIG ang nasabing sasakyan sa TAUHAN NG UNANG PANIG na wala ng
paghahabol pa.
Moreover, well-settled is the rule that, the employer has the burden of proving that the
dismissal of an employee is for a just cause. The failure of the employer to discharge
this burden means that the dismissal is not justified and that the employee is entitled to
reinstatement and back wages.
In the case at bench, private respondent in his position paper before the Labor
Arbiter, alleged that petitioner failed to pay the miscellaneous fee of P10,000.00 and the
yearly registration of the unit; that petitioner also stopped remitting the boundary
hulog, prompting him (private respondent) to issue a Paalala, which petitioner
however ignored; that petitioner even brought the unit to his (petitioners) province
without informing him (private respondent) about it; and that petitioner eventually
abandoned the vehicle at a gasoline station after figuring in an accident. But private
respondent failed to substantiate these allegations with solid, sufficient proof. Notably,
private respondents allegation viz, that he retrieved the vehicle from the gas station,
where petitioner abandoned it, contradicted his statement in the Paalala that he would
enforce the provision (in the Kasunduan) to the effect that default in the remittance of
the boundary hulog for one week would result in the forfeiture of the unit. The Paalala
reads as follows:
Sa lahat ng mga kumukuha ng sasakyan
Sa pamamagitan ng BOUNDARY HULOG
Nais ko pong ipaalala sa inyo ang Kasunduan na inyong pinirmahan particular na ang
paragrapo 13 na nagsasaad na kung hindi kayo makapagbigay ng Boundary Hulog sa
loob ng isang linggo ay kusa ninyong ibabalik and nasabing sasakyan na inyong
hinuhulugan ng wala ng paghahabol pa.
Mula po sa araw ng inyong pagkatanggap ng Paalala na ito ay akin na pong ipatutupad
ang nasabing Kasunduan kayat aking pinaaalala sa inyong lahat na tuparin natin ang
nakalagay sa kasunduan upang maiwasan natin ito.
Hinihiling ko na sumunod kayo sa hinihingi ng paalalang ito upang hindi na tayo
makaabot pa sa korte kung sakaling hindi ninyo isasauli ang inyong sasakyan na
hinuhulugan na ang mga magagastos ay kayo pa ang magbabayad sapagkat ang hindi
ninyo pagtupad sa kasunduan ang naging dahilan ng pagsampa ng kaso.
Sumasainyo
Attendance: 8/27/99
(The Signatures appearing herein
include (sic) that of petitioners) (Sgd.)
OSCAR VILLAMARIA, JR.
If it were true that petitioner did not remit the boundary hulog for one week or more,
why did private respondent not forthwith take steps to recover the unit, and why did
he have to wait for petitioner to abandon it?
On another point, private respondent did not submit any police report to support his
claim that petitioner really figured in a vehicular mishap. Neither did he present the
affidavit of the guard from the gas station to substantiate his claim that petitioner
[58]
abandoned the unit there.
Petitioners claim that he opted not to terminate the employment of respondent
because of magnanimity is negated by his (petitioners) own evidence that he took the
jeepney from the respondent only on July 24, 2000.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78720 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice